Law for non married couples for property when they split up

Melissa177

sciencegeek wrote: »

this all seems very complicated...

trying to work things out based upon someone paying more deposit... someone pays more bills... someone does the ironing...someone earns 2.5x what the other one does... etc etc

Why not just get married and then you can just work along 50/50 guidelines!:rotfl:

I always think it amusing when one person goes to work and the other stays at home and its considered to be an equal contribution to the household! I would LOVE LOVE LOVE to be the one staying at home but unfortunately (?) my wage is considerably larger than my partners at the moment so if anyone was to stay at home (to care for any future sprogs etc) it makes sense for it to be her boo hoo.

I agreed with the first part of your post, but not the last paragraph entirely.

I think if one partner stays at home and runs it and looks after the children, this is every bit as equal to someone going out to work. It's a partnership - one half couldn't do what they did without the other.

My parents work this way, and they have a great relationship. Not sure I could stay at home though - I need to find a househusband!

Phirefly

sciencegeek wrote: »

this all seems very complicated...

Not really, I put down 5% deposit so I own 52.5% of the property, everything else is split equally. While I do b!tch and moan about doing the lions share of the cleaning, Mr. P is resident chef so it all comes out in the wash I suppose

I'd LOVE to stop at home and do the 'chores' all day too, but I couldn't help feeling like I wasn't contributing my share. I think you're right, it comes into focus when you start dropping sprogs because in my opinion childcare is certainly a huge and important job...

sciencegeek

I can agree with you where childcare is involved, I much prefer the idea of a parent looking after the child than putting it into a daycare, but what about when the child goes to school. Many couples continue the '1 person works while one person does the housework' arrangement long after the children no longer require constant care.

Would you suggest that a single person living on their own is essentially working two full time jobs then? (job 1 = daywork, job 2 = housework). Call me cynical but I can cook clean shop and do all the housy things as well as work full time and the housy stuff only takes about an hour a day.
If a househusband/housewife was spending 8 hours a day on housework it would be like living inside a sterile box it would be so clean!!!

sciencegeek

Phirefly wrote: »

it all comes out in the wash I suppose

I quite agree, everyone has their preferred tasks around the house (I hate the dishes for example but i dont mind cleaning the bog) and as long as everyone is happy its all good

Phirefly

sciencegeek wrote: »

Call me cynical but I can cook clean shop and do all the housy things as well as work full time and the housy stuff only takes about an hour a day.

typical boy - I could happily find enough to do around the house to last me 37.5 hours a week!!! It does sometimes feel like the housework/gardening/maintenence etc is another full time job, huge generalisation and doesn't apply in all cases but women just seem to SEE things around the home that need doing. Having said that, I work full time, freelance part time so from my point of view theres never enough time to do housey things. Good job the Wharfpad is so small or I'd have a right old moanup.

sciencegeek wrote: »

sterile box

mmm bleach

I'm not arguing with you, I'm not even sure what my point is

zweety

Gosh, a shame I don't have more time to read more carefully... And won't have internet access to the internet either...

Well, at the beginning, he wanted to have his investment, and have a tenant in the property to pay part of the mortgage.
But as we're gonna live together, there's no way (for me) we have a flatmate...
We're not keen on buying together now as we've bee together for only one year, and I've just started a permanent position... In few years will be better.

sciencegeek

Phirefly wrote: »

typical boy -

you might have a good point there!! as long as I cant SEE the dirt i kind of assume it must be clean enough!! :rotfl:

olive84

I'm in the process of buying with my OH (not married), and we had to decide whether to be tenants in common or joint tenants. We wanted to be joint tenants at first, but our sol said that if we split up it would be extremely difficult to decide who got what, and if we really wanted to make life difficult we'd have to go to court (and be left fighting over the legal fees instead!). So we're tenants in common with equal shares. If I was you and was paying anything towards the mortgage, I'd want to be tenants in common in unequal shares, depending on how much you contribute. You will be helping him pay his mortgage after all...

Phirefly

sciencegeek wrote: »

you might have a good point there!! as long as I cant SEE the dirt i kind of assume it must be clean enough!! :rotfl:

LOL *theatrical tut*

sciencegeek

zweety wrote: »

Gosh, a shame I don't have more time to read more carefully... And won't have internet access to the internet either...

Well, at the beginning, he wanted to have his investment, and have a tenant in the property to pay part of the mortgage.
But as we're gonna live together, there's no way (for me) we have a flatmate...
We're not keen on buying together now as we've bee together for only one year, and I've just started a permanent position... In few years will be better.

As you say, you have only been together for 1 year so far so perhaps you could agree that you will rent from him for a year (in the same way you would rent from a stranger) to see how things go.
If it all works out you could reassess the financial situation in 12 months.
It might make you feel 'safer' in that if things dont work out great then you wont have the ties to the property and to your boyfriend that might make moving out more tricky (hopefully this will not be something you have to worry about).
And as you also say, if you requested that you not take a lodger in, that does mean a few hundred pounds a month less income.